La fête et les invités

It's a political allegory set in 1966 Czechoslovakia that was banned for many years except for a short time during Prague Spring in 1968.

The story follows a group of seven middle-class men and women having a picnic near a lake. There is a discussion about an obscure future event. At one point, they see what appears to be a wedding party dance by at a distance. They finally decide to proceed to get to the "celebration" in time.

Suddenly, the group is accosted by a significant number of men. The men are led by Rudolf (Jan Klusak). It's not clear if they are threatening or joking. Karel (Karel Mares) defies Rudolf at one point and is roughed up. Josef (Jirí Nemec) from the picnic group helps to bring peace. Then an older man in white appears. Known as The Host (Ivan Vyskocil), he welcomes everyone to his joint birthday party and wedding celebration. He reprimands Rudolph and seems to smooth everything over.

During the meal, the Host learns his guests occupy the wrong seats and that one of the men from the picnic has left. This causes great consternation, and the Host and Rudolf decide to go and find the missing man and return him to the party. They use a large dog with massive teeth to aid in the search.

The aura of threat over a façade of peace apparently offended the Czech government of the time. This is not usually my type of film, but I thought it effectively communicated its point. It was banned in 1967 because it had "nothing in common with our republic, socialism, and the ideals of Communism."

Bland and pointless. At just over 1 hour in length, it drags on for what feels like a much longer time. At best, this movie might be useful for its soporific effect; it could very easily lull a tired person to sleep with its slow pace and meaninglessness. Beyond that, it's just another pretentious "art" project by someone who wanted to make a movie but had nothing to provide the viewers other than a small bit of surrealism.

A group of friends are going on a picnic. They are stopped by unknown men during the way. They don't actually notice the moment when they become slaves of a game of absurd. A game they agreed to take part in. They were softly persuaded. Or they were trying to be kind. None of them is able to cross the line drawn on the sand. Except for one who will run away. The fugitive will be chased by the guest who do not do it because of fear. Simply said, they don't want to do any harm to the host...

An idyllic party turns into a prison camp, but the guests don't seem to notice that at all. It was a film about the world we used to live in. We were invited to a similar party and tried to pretend with keeping a smile on our faces. And the cinema was able to film that "escape towards freedom".

Jan Nemec was one of the biggest individuals of the young Czechoslovakian cinema of the 60's. It was already at college were he had trouble with censorship. It stated that he was picking the wrong subjects and that he reached out for wrong authors (Hlasko, Dostojevski). He was also accused of their wrongful interpretation.

'A Report on the Party and the Guests' is not just a biting political allegory on Communism, it is also one of the most astute observations on human nature I have ever seen- which is what makes it universal.

The "plot" revolves around a group of friends who are having a picnic in the park one afternoon, but are eventually forced into going to a birthday celebration for a man they do not know. In order to gain his favor, some of the group betray a friend who left the party. The plot is actually loosely structured after the manner that Czechoslovakia was taken over by the Communists in the 50's, and the way the Czechs allowed it to happen. Interestingly for a film that was "banned forever" by the Communists, I found it to be more scathing in its depiction of the people who were seduced into the situation, and then collaborated with the party overseeres.

In a film with a surrealist plot, the acting is surprisingly realistic. The situation is so bizarre, but the film poses the question: if you were there would you have acted any different? The situation, after all, was very bizarre in real life too. The acting is excellent, the cinemetography is excellent, and Jan Nemec (whose Holocaust film 'Diamonds of the Night' I found to be disappointing) directs with a bold hand. This is a great film, and it's not just a history lesson. There's humor in it too, and it's very interesting from a psychological perspective. 10/10

...but if is has one it is no doubt subversive. That was the British Board of Film Censors' verdict on another surrealist film, and the same is true here. It isn't about communist coups or subversion; it's about the contradictions of human nature and that makes it much more dangerous than any ostensibly revolutionary or counter-revolutionary film. The host- who says he loves surprises but hates surprises he has not arranged himself- is more like a self-made businessman or an old-fashioned nobleman than any apparatchik and even more like god- he wants everyone to enjoy his banquet and is hurt if they don't, and takes drastic measures if his generosity is rejected, while his eccentric son tries to fulfil his desires.